Is Valve really going to file a lawsuit against him and argue in court whether this actually happened or not? They're not. Do they even have grounds to file a lawsuit? Likely not, American courts aren't that sympathetic to libel claims.

But let's assume for a minute that what you're saying has some merit. Maybe Valve does have grounds to sue. And maybe they're interested in suing. In that case, is this lousy attempt at being coy helpful? It's clear from his bio that he's only worked at one such company. So it's abundantly clear to everyone who he's working for.

In reality, this pattern ("worked for a large software-advertising company with a double O in it's name") is fucking annoying. It's designed to make the reader curious and more likely to read the rest of what's written. It's similar to clickbait in that sense. And I wish to God it would stop. I'd request people to please just name names, or keep it yourself.

American civil system is not based on merit or reason. Anyone can file for any reason, any decent lawyer can make some claims that will require you to argue against, else they be automatically defaulted to true and you lose. It doesn't matter if the big corp wins or not, the toll it takes on you is threat enough.

This isn't about civil disputes anyways. No employer wants to see a prospective new hire trash talking their previous company. Doesn't matter if it's deserved or not, it's seen as a liability.

Hahaha yeah you know what start with this exact preamble next time you're a plaintiff telling the judge why you deserve money. "The American civil system is not based on merit or reason." I would say it is in fact based on both of those, but more than anything on judgment.

Whether the US civil system itself is based on merit or reason, the problem is that employers have all the resources and can play parliamentary procedure ad nauseam--even in the rare cases where the good guys win, they'll file appeals and motions while refusing to pay the judgment. Not to mention, they know which judges can be corrupted, and they also have PR resources and will rape the shit out of anyone who even mildly embarrasses them.

I was against you up until the "rape the shit out of...". That got real real, real fast. It is by all means the intention.[1] Almost happened to me in a setting that wasn't employment, I had to do all these defensive maneuvers like getting out of America to make sure I got a trial[2]. I am not a judge of any court, to a small extent just the court of public places, but I find merit and solid reasoning in your case.

[1] You know what, one employer definitely did that, apparently bribed my lawyer to get them to drop the case, got that vibe from the lawyer. Yeah, I thought I could argue with you at the very beginning, but no longer.

[2] Extradition from a country of which you are a citizen requires a real trial, like that takes years, America will let me go to prison without trial but Chile will not let America do that without any kind of extradition trial at all. A lawyer congratulated me on this defensive maneuver.

I think a textbook example of that is what Chevron did to Steven Donziger.

Frivolous litigation happens but is fairly rare but, as you said, nothing in this country prevents potential employers from anally raping candidates for "bad-mouthing" prior companies. In the US, that's a legally defensible reason to fuck someone over, even if what was said about the ex-employer was truthful.

American companies always have bored lawyers on staff, and lawsuits are just day-to-day activities for them. Suing costs the company virtually nothing, while defending against that suit as a private party can be ruinously expensive. The company can almost always afford better PR than you can, and relying or hoping your case going viral and the company backing off due to negative PR isn't going to help you sleep at night.

It isn't fair, but that's how it is. Don't poke the bear anymore than you have to. All you have to do is personally anger one executive and they can go after you.

Retaliating against employees for discussing their working conditions is in fact enormously legally risky for a company. Doubly-so when doing it via SLAPP lawsuits. Why on earth would Valve take the risk?

> Why on earth would Valve take the risk?

yes, exactly. Esp. if he is the only one talking about it this way publicly. If it's truly awful, employees will vote with their wallets and quit.

And if valve wins the law suit, what reward would they have gained, other than stopping him from saying what he has already said (which cannot be taken back). There might be punitive damages to be paid, but it's not like the corporation is going to make money from doing so.

And in fact, making a law suit would legitimize the claims!

It's very likely that Valve is a major client of his current business. Geldreich builds and licenses a texture compression system that can supposedly outperform anything else on the market.

> Is Valve really going to file a lawsuit against him and argue in court whether this actually happened or not?

They most likely won't, you are correct. But it just simply doesn't seem to be worth the trouble on the off-chance that they will decide to do it.

The whole thing is just a situation where you risk a lot (even if the chance of that risk materializing is very small), but you aren't really gaining anything by taking the risk. What's the point of taking the risk of naming the company, if you can tell the entire story just as fine without naming them and reducing the risk to zero?

> if you can tell the entire story just as fine without naming them and reducing the risk to zero?

That’s my point. He’s not reducing shit. We all know exactly who he’s talking about. All he’s done is curiosity baited us into reading this.

Or just maintaining plausible deniability.

I would certainly have a different opinion about someone saying negative things about me in anonymous generic terms that people paying attention could figure out, vs using my name and posting direct criticism. As would most people I think.

Heard that's not necessarily enough, "not specifically naming".

IANAL but would love a lawyer to chime in. My understanding was that you could indeed get in trouble if you don't cast enough ambiguity around the identity of the person/company you are trashing, but casting some ambiguity is better than none.

I am also not a lawyer, but I've always heard that telling the truth is a bulletproof defense in libel/slander/defamation situations. Some employment contracts have non-disparagement clauses but I think they're fairly rare (kind of a red flag) and at least where I live they can't prevent you from truthful griping about working conditions

As I understand it, this might be true in America, but in Japan, "it's the truth" isn't a defense against libel.

In the United States, truth is an absolute defense against libel. You are correct that it is not in other countries, but this is someone in America (probably an American) talking about an American company.

That's wild. How does that work out legally? A company can sue an employee for telling a damaging (but uncontested) truth?

It works if the law says that reputational damage trumps the fact that the statement causing the damage is true--or can't be proven to be false. Although the UK has made some changes in recent years, it's probably the best example in the West of a country where truth isn't necessarily a defense against a libel suit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law (And somewhat ironically given that US law has its roots in English common law, the US swings heavily on the side of free speech.)